The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies that all sex acts must be both unitive and procreative.

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155 2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality: When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual selfgiving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156 2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."157 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159 Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160 2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny."161

2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens' well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.162 In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law. 2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church's traditional practice see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents' generosity.163 2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. "What will you give me," asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"164 And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"165 2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."166 2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167 2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169 2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170 2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.

The Catholic Church's position on contraception was formally explained and expressed by Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae in 1968. Artificial contraception is considered intrinsically evil, but methods of natural family planning are morally permissible in some circumstances, as they do not usurp the natural way of conception. In justification of this position, Pope Paul VI claimed, "Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beingsand especially the young, who are so exposed to temptationneed incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. On July 17, 1994, John Paul II clarified the Church's position during a meditation said prior to an angelus recitation. Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood ... as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so. Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one of the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God's co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child. Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference.

CFC

Chapter

19

Respecting Human Sexuality

1063. Throughout the Philippines today, the Christian Filipino is caught up in a whirlwind of changing patterns of man-woman relationships, and of the understanding of sexuality itself. The traditional chaste and modest Maria Clara ideal of Filipino womanhood has quietly faded away. Highly praised in past eras for being mayumi, mahinhin, malinis ang puso at maganda, todays Filipina must face challenges posed by new career possibilities, new demands of family and community, and new economic and social situations. The direct influence of Christian faith on the sexual mores of Filipino daily life today is diluted by the growing impact of mass media: TV, the cinema, and magazines/comic books with their blatant exploitation of sex. The Filipino family is under tremendous moral strain. Economic pressures are breaking up family solidarity. Political trends tend to foster artificial means of birth-control, including such immoral means as sterilization and abortion. Social enticements from todays consumerist society promote the good life glorifying pleasure and sexual promiscuity. 1064. Together with all these changes, PCP II denounces the persistence of the double-standard of morality in Filipino sexual attitudes and relationships (PCP II 582). From a Christian perspective this is extremely harmful for both men and women. While the Filipina is expected to be a virgin before marriage, and faithful within marriage, the Filipino male youth is constantly bombarded by the opposite macho image of what it means to be tunay na lalaki. The socially accepted querida system is likewise castigated by the Document of the Plenary Council (cf. PCP II 587-89). 1065. In reaction, the current womens liberation movement aims to free women from this state of injustice and subjugation which denies their true dignity. But some feminists fall into the trap of seeking equality by demanding the same licentious sexual irresponsibility as the macho male. This, of course, leads to just another form of womens enslavement and manipulation, with social consequences clearly manifest in the rampant pornography and prostitution.

EXPOSITION
I. THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT
1066. The Sixth Commandment, You shall not commit adultery (Ex 20:14; Dt 5:17), seems simple and direct. It forbids married persons from entering into sexual union with someone other than their spouse. But for the ancient Israelites, this Commandment had more social significance than sexual. Its aim was to protect the family, the absolutely necessary basis for society. The family and marriage were viewed directly in terms of

the two Genesis creation narratives. God created man male and female so that man would not be alone (cf. Gn 2:18), and to multiply and fill the earth (cf. Gn 1:27f). Sexuality, therefore, is for both human completeness and procreation. Thus while focusing on the specific relationship of marriage, the sixth commandment actually touches upon the very nature of human sexuality, the entire range of man-woman relationships, and our common vocation to love and communion (cf. CCC 2331). 1094. Admittedly, chastity is a difficult virtue, but it surely is not just a series of negative donts which some pretend it to be. John Paul II wrote:
In the Christian view, chastity by no means signifies rejection of human sexuality or lack of esteem for it: rather, it signifies spiritual energy capable of defending love from the perils of selfishness and aggressiveness, and able to advance it towards its full realization (FC 33).

1095. Chastity deals with our external acts but precisely as expressing the inner yearnings of our heart. At the root, purity of heart is a positive power for authentic human freedom and love, not a repressive denial of the true value and exercise of our sexuality. This is proclaimed in the Sixth Beatitude, Blessed are the purehearted, for they shall see God (Mt 5:8). The pure of heart designates those who direct their hearts, bodies and mind toward God, in charity, or purity of heart (cf. 2 Tim 2:22); in chastity, or purity of body (cf. Col 3:5); and in or-thodoxy, or purity of faith (cf. 2 Tim 2:26). St. Paul sums this up: what we are aiming at is. . . love that springs from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith (1 Tim 1:5). 1096. Despite its bad press and reputation today, even among many Christian Filipinos, chastity, or purity of heart, exercises key functions in the daily, maturing process of following Christ. Chastity puts order into our sexual drives, much as telling the truth orders our speech. This means, that it channels our sexual energies toward a positive, affirmative service of love and fostering of life. Toward that goal, chastity seeks the limits in our behavior within which our passions can be directed so that they give rise to joy and peace, not pain, guilt and heartbreak. Thus, purity of heart, demands that we develop a certain self-control to meet the temptations and challenges presented by community daily life. Such self-control constitutes a good part of what it means to grow up toward becoming mature, responsible men and women and disciples of Jesus Christ.

1108. Regarding contraception, the Church has insisted that marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Hence, while rejecting artificial means of contraception and birth control, the Church encourages natural family planning to ensure that the procreation, nurture and education of the children might be achieved in a truly human and Christian way. Vatican II urges the parents to fulfill their task with human and Christian responsibility. The parents themselves must ultimately make this judgment, in the sight of God, and with Christian consciences enlightened by the teaching of the Church, reckoning with both the material and spiritual conditions of the times, as well as their state in life (GS 50). 1109. In the Philippines today, a growing drive for population control has given rise to anxieties and misgivings among many Catholic Filipinos. Clearly, unlimited procreation of children, or rearing children by chance rather than choice, are not responsible ways of acting. Nevertheless, the population problem is not primarily one of numbers, but of the care of persons, and the improvement of the quality of human life. This involves not only food, clothing and shelter, but spiritual endowments such as conscience and freedom and moral integrity. Would it not be the height of folly to strive for greater material prosperity at the cost of violence done to personal conscience, freedom in decision making, and the exercise of moral integrity? The key to the problem is not in external means of control through mechanical and chemical contraceptives, but rather in the development and maturation of inner mastery of ones sexual behavior __ in the chastity and self-control

demanded by the stable commitment of marriage. (Cf. CBCPs Pastoral Letter on the Population Problem and Family Life, 1973.

1132. What is the Churchs position on population control? The Church encourages natural family planning, but holds that the key to the population problem is not in external means of control, such as mechanical and chemical contraceptives, but in inner mastery over ones sexual behavior through chastity and self-control.